Theists, please give your opinion on this quote from Epicurius.

[TheEvilDetector]

Define perfect.

Perfection implies purpose or some sort of goal.

What is the purpose for creating humans? Maybe they are executing that purpose flawlessly. Maybe humans are perfect for their purpose and don't know it.

Maybe the purpose was to amuse God by having certain things forbidden and then giving them innate urges to do those things. When they fail, they amuse God.

Then he can be further amused by torturing them in hell for eternity.

Doesn't sound appealing at all.

 

[Theocrat]

I Wonder If You Actually Read My Post

I would take that a step further and tell you that God knew the outcome before he even started (he is all knowing), so the exercise had to have been a sadistic urge from the beginning.



All knowing Superbeing giving pointless warnings that he knows ahead of time are not going to be heeded, following up with murder?!

With respect, your beliefs are very amusing.

Let me make it clear, perfect beings do not give pointless warnings, nor do they suffer from sadistic urges.

Theo, I invite you to believe in the purple teapot orbiting Saturn, it's less irrational and sadistic and can make you a cup of tea if you pray nicely.

It's easy to take something a person says and quote it out of context. Thus, it shows that you have not thought intelligently of my entire post and the ramifications of what I've laid out. Of course, that is a standard technique of some "atheists". They don't really care about the opposing view. All they want to do is complain against God and attack those who believe in God, even though they claim to not believe in Him, in the first place. I encourage you to go back and read what I've posted, if you want to understand where I'm coming from.

You're no better than Epicurus, and Christian philosophers have been demolishing arguments similar to his for ages. So, if you can't reconcile the sovereignty of God with the existence of evil, then that is your problem, not mine. Change your worldview by giving up your anti-theistic assumptions, and maybe things will begin to make sense to you on this subject. And, no, that action does not imply foregoing reason nor logic, for God is the precondition of intelligibility for both.

 

[Theocrat]

A Similar Question (Though Off-Topic)

Why does God need to test his creations, when he already knows the outcome?

Why does a university professor give exams to his students when he already knows what's going to be on the exam and the answers, as well?

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Why does a university professor give exams to his students when he already knows what's going to be on the exam and the answers, as well?

University professor does not know the results until after the fact.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

It's easy to take something a person says and quote it out of context. Thus, it shows that you have not thought intelligently of my entire post and the ramifications of what I've laid out. Of course, that is a standard technique of some "atheists". They don't really care about the opposing view. All they want to do is complain against God and attack those who believe in God, even though they claim to not believe in Him, in the first place. I encourage you to go back and read what I've posted, if you want to understand where I'm coming from.

You're no better than Epicurus, and Christian philosophers have been demolishing arguments similar to his for ages. So, if you can't reconcile the sovereignty of God with the existence of evil, then that is your problem, not mine. Change your worldview by giving up your anti-theistic assumptions, and maybe things will begin to make sense to you on this subject. And, no, that action does not imply foregoing reason nor logic, for God is the precondition of intelligibility for both.

Obfuscation. My points were crystal and sourced.

You cannot refute them logically only personally as the highlighted portions show.

With respect, I'm sorry, but I think you could have done better.

Go on Theo, take an example from God himself, put the yummiest candy in front of your kids (if you have any), tell them not to eat them, then watch them 24 hours a day.
At some point, get a friend to continually tempt them to eat the candy and when they do, punish your kids. It is God's way.

 

[Theocrat]

You're Just Begging the Question

Let me make it clear, perfect beings:

do not give pointless warnings
do not suffer from sadistic urges
do not engage in entrapment
do not need to test their creations
do not make their creations suffer pointlessly (for their own amusement?).

Although you keep editing your same post, let me ask you some questions about your statements above.

• How do you know what a perfect being would do?
• Are you a perfect being?
• Where did you get your knowledge of what a perfect being would and would not do?
• Who are you to try and judge God? You're just a finite man subject to death, like everyone else.
• On what basis do you seek to judge God, and is that standard objective or subjective?

Your problem is you try to deal with the eternal and secret things of God instead of dealing with what He has revealed. We cannot understand every single detail of God's will and purpose for His creation, for we are not God. However, God has been pleased to give us an account of Who He is by His own testimonies in the Bible. That should be sufficient enough for understanding God and His purposes to overcome the evil in this world.

 

[Theocrat]

Intent

University professor does not know the results until after the fact.

Why does he give his students examinations? After all, he himself already knows the answers to the exam, presumably being a scholar at the subject which is being tested on.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Although you keep editing your same post, let me ask you some questions about your statements above.

• How do you know what a perfect being would do?
• Are you a perfect being?
• Where did you get your knowledge of what a perfect being would and would not do?
• Who are you to try and judge God? You're just a finite man subject to death, like everyone else.
• On what basis do you seek to judge God, and is that standard objective or subjective?

Your problem is you try to deal with the eternal and secret things of God instead of dealing with what He has revealed. We cannot understand every single detail of God's will and purpose for His creation, for we are not God. However, God has been pleased to give us an account of Who He is by His own testimonies in the Bible. That should be sufficient enough for understanding God and His purposes to overcome the evil in this world.

If a perfect being acts like someone we would ourselves hold in contempt or worse throw in jail then sorry, it is not someone I want to follow if I were inclined to follow invisible deities in the first place. If this were not true, we would have a barbarian society. In fact in general it is quite safe to say, that the bible suffers a lot from the "Do as I say, not as I do" affliction.

For example, would you have a kid and then hurt that kid by giving him pain if he ate an apple that you said he shouldn't eat after you entrapped him by getting someone to continually tempt him to eat it? If you would hurt your kid physically in such a situation, you are likely to be looked down upon and I have no doubt, a public poll would also reflect that opinion.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Why does he give his students examinations? After all, he himself already knows the answers to the exam, presumably being a scholar at the subject which is being tested on.

The point is to find out how well the students learned the material. The teacher does not know this, until the students are tested and THEIR answers are graded.

 

[Theocrat]

It Depends on How the Being is Defined

If a perfect being acts like someone we would ourselves hold in contempt or worse throw in jail. Sorry, it is not someone I want to follow.

Well, that is your opinion. Besides, I find your marks of what a perfect being would be as a strawman argument for the triune God of the Bible. God does none of those things which you've accused Him of, except testing the faith of His people. In addition to that, you have no basis upon which you can judge anything as good or evil because you reject God as the moral Lawgiver. So, I find your remarks against the evil which God allows to be arbitrary, at best, and contradictory, at worst.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Well, that is your opinion. Besides, I find your marks of what a perfect being would be as a strawman argument for the triune God of the Bible. God does none of those things which you've accused Him of, except testing the faith of His people. In addition to that, you have no basis upon which you can judge anything as good or evil because you reject God as the moral Lawgiver. So, I find your remarks against the evil which God allows to be arbitrary, at best, and contradictory, at worst.

Theo, you don't have any bullets, so you go with circular logic ie. "you are wrong, because you are wrong."

Once again, you could have done better.

You say God does nothing I mentioned even though a lot of my material comes from your own quotes, the rest from the bible itself.

You say all he does is test the faith of his people, but then, if he knows the outcome, how can it be a test?

The word test suggests not knowing the outcome ahead of time, in other words if you know the outcome, you are not testing, you are just bored.

So God isn't testing by definition (see Note A).

You agree that God allows Evil, but I take it you never take such action to be evil in itself?

Is it not evil to create circumstances such as in the Adam and Eve scenario where you know that suffering is a GUARANTEED end result?

Let me put it succinctly: God engaged in activity guaranteed to produce suffering in the first human beings Adam and Eve.

In fact, my claims were pointed to God doing evil things himself, rather than passively allowing it, but you come back with the all encompassing "you can't tell right from wrong" retort.

If this were true, why am I writing this from my home and not a jail cell? By now, if I had such a genuine disability, I would be sharing a cell with Bubba, doing his laundry.

Your implication that Atheists cannot judge good or evil is quite troubling:

What should we do with Atheist Judges and Juries since those people cannot judge good and evil?

What about Atheist lawmakers?

Do you think everyone in position of office has to be a Christian?

How do you feel this impacts on political representation?

Note A:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/test

"test 1 (tst)
n.
1. A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial: a test of one's eyesight; subjecting a hypothesis to a test; a test of an athlete's endurance.
2. A series of questions, problems, or physical responses designed to determine knowledge, intelligence, or ability.
3. A basis for evaluation or judgment: "A test of democratic government is how Congress and the president work together" Haynes Johnson.
4. Chemistry
a. A physical or chemical change by which a substance may be detected or its properties ascertained.
b. A reagent used to cause or promote such a change.
c. A positive result obtained.
5. A cupel."

 

[Theocrat]

God is the "Professor" of the Universe

The point is to find out how well the students learned the material. The teacher does not know this, until the students are tested and THEIR answers are graded.

That is a one-sided view. The examination is not solely for the benefit of the professor. He gives the exam so that the student is assured that he understands the lessons and can apply them in a satisfactory manner.

In similar manner, God provides tests to those whom He loves by acts of providence in their lives. He does that to strengthen their faith, give them assurance that they are truly His, and prepare them for blessings, among other things. God knows what the end result will be, but He doesn't reveal that to His people, for how would that benefit them in their faith, anyway?

 

[Theocrat]

Way to Be Irrational

Theo, you don't have any bullets, so you go with circular logic ie. "you are wrong, because you are wrong."

Once again, you could have done better.

That is hardly a circular argument. Your failure to answer the question reveals that you have no basis to judge what good and evil are in an absolute, objective, and necessary way. So, personal attacks suit you well.

 

[Theocrat]

Testing Faith and the Impossibility of the Contrary

You say God does nothing I mentioned even though a lot of my material comes from your own quotes, the rest from the bible itself.

You say all he does is test the faith of his people, but then, if he knows the outcome, why perform tests?

The word test suggests not knowing the outcome ahead of time, in other words if you know the outcome, you are not testing, you are just bored.

So God isn't testing by definition.

Additionally, what's interesting about your remarks is the troubling implication that Atheists cannot judge good or evil.

What should we do with Atheist Judges and Juries since those people cannot judge good and evil?

What about Atheist lawmakers?

God tests the faith of His people for their own benefit. Since they can't see the future, God leads them into it by the measure and working of their faith towards Him. Also, I find your analysis that God's knowledge of the expected outcomes of His tests causes Him to be bored as unfounded and silly. Where in the Bible does it ever say that? Also, if God has pleasure in the faith of His saints (Hebrews 11), I don't think He would be bored about that in the least bit.

Well, "atheists" can be judges, jurors, and lawmakers, but they cannot perform their duties by the implications and tenets of the "atheist" worldview. Since, according to "atheists", all there is is just molecules in motion and nothing immaterial, there can be no concepts such as laws and morals. However, the "atheist" uses laws and morals to make sense of the world, and when he does so, he is not being consistent with his "atheistic" assumptions. In effect, he is behaving like a Christian theist, albeit in an arbitrary way. "Atheists" have to steal from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of their own. Epicurus was a prime example of that in his appealing to morality.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

That is a one-sided view. The examination is not solely for the benefit of the professor. He gives the exam so that the student is assured that he understands the lessons and can apply them in a satisfactory manner.

In similar manner, God provides tests to those whom He loves by acts of providence in their lives. He does that to strengthen their faith, give them assurance that they are truly His, and prepare them for blessings, among other things. God knows what the end result will be, but He doesn't reveal that to His people, for how would that benefit them in their faith, anyway?

I think you jumped the gun and went off on a tangent Theo.

The point was to show that unlike God, a teacher does NOT know ahead of time the outcome of the tests he gives.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

That is hardly a circular argument. Your failure to answer the question reveals that you have no basis to judge what good and evil are in an absolute, objective, and necessary way. So, personal attacks suit you well.

This speaks for itself.

You will find that the intellectuals that frequent this board would not be impressed with a comment like the above.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

God tests the faith of His people for their own benefit. Since they can't see the future, God leads them into it by the measure and working of their faith towards Him. Also, I find your analysis that God's knowledge of the expected outcomes of His tests causes Him to be bored as unfounded and silly. Where in the Bible does it ever say that? Also, if God has pleasure in the faith of His saints (Hebrews 11), I don't think He would be bored about that in the least bit.

As I said, God cannot be 'testing' by definition of that very word.

Well, "atheists" can be judges, jurors, and lawmakers, but they cannot perform their duties by the implications and tenets of the "atheist" worldview.

And yet they do.

Since, according to "atheists", all there is is just molecules in motion and nothing immaterial, there can be no concepts such as laws and morals.

When you say things like this, it's quite easy to debunk.

I am an atheist and I believe in the existence of concepts of laws and morals.

Not only do I believe in them but I follow them eg. I follow civil laws and I try to act morally with other human beings (eg. not hurting them, helping out etc).

Claim Debunked.

However, the "atheist" uses laws and morals to make sense of the world,

Your logic does not make sense, given what you said immediately prior.

Since, if we do not accept concepts such as laws and morals, we wouldn't be using them.

I doubt that you meant that atheists walk around as zombies following morals and laws without knowing it.

Your immediate points are simply sophistry.

Putting that aside, you will find that Atheists do have morals and do obey laws.

and when he does so, he is not being consistent with his "atheistic" assumptions. In effect, he is behaving like a Christian theist, albeit in an arbitrary way.

Saying it, doesn't make it so Theo. Atheists can derive morals from any combination of the following:

* other Atheists
* non Christian religious people
* books or any media for that matter
(including historical study of morals (including prior to the time of introduction of Christianity))
* basic desire to be left alone (ie. not hurt) and likewise not hurt others to sustain the former.
* general everyday interactions

You don't actually believe that all atheists in the world borrowed moral behaviour from Christianity do you?

That's patently absurd, however it can be understood since you are a rigid believer that an invisible super being
is a required prerequisite for visible beings to be able to tell right from wrong.

Although I try to keep a straight face, it's a little comical, when the same superbeing is written to have commited
acts, that ordinary beings like myself (and I consider myself a reasonable man) would find appalling and immoral.

This is a logical problem to say the least.

Of course, you replied with essentially a position, that tells me that I know nothing of good and evil, if I think God
does anything evil.

In other words, you are leading me to believe that everything God does is an unqualified good.

The logical conclusion I am to reach then, is that even if I suffer at the hands of God it is a good act,
no matter the circumstances or context. Sorry but I can't subscribe to such a tyrannical belief system,
assuming I was inclined to believe in invisible deities, which I am not. Besides I lack the masochistic
qualities requisite of such a subscription.

Interestingly you have skirted my two questions relating punishment of kids in the earlier scenarios I put up.

"Atheists" have to steal from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of their own. Epicurus was a prime example of that in his appealing to morality.

Sorry to break it to you but Christians didn't invent moral behaviour per se, while certainly they do have their own particular brand of it.
Historically, the Christians copied some of the existing ideas floating around actually. They didn't invent the wheel in this department.

In fact if you study the matter, there are several theories of moral behaviour that are quite interesting and the actual subject began to be
looked into a long time prior to the origins of the Christian religion and in general not necessarily associated with a "god" of any kind eg. Ancient Greece.

'Human Origins of Morals' seems like an interesting book
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/mccabe02.htm

 

[idiom]

See, This is why I choose the Bible over Aquinas. Its really a lot easier.

 

[Original_Intent]

I think you jumped the gun and went off on a tangent Theo.

The point was to show that unlike God, a teacher does NOT know ahead of time the outcome of the tests he gives.

Knowing in advance that putting dough in the oven for a certain amount of time and at a certain temperature makes bread does not give you bread. If you want bread, you have to go through the actual process of baking it.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Knowing in advance that putting dough in the oven for a certain amount of time and at a certain temperature makes bread does not give you bread. If you want bread, you have to go through the actual process of baking it.

Yes, while that is true, what is your point?

God wanted to see Adam and Eve suffer, even before they actually did anything wrong?
(after all, he knew how things would end up from the start, for he knows all
and he did introduce the sly serpent to the mix as a means of entrapment)

If all suffering is planned by God, I am sorry but that would not serve to bring me closer to him,
were I a religious man. I simply do not have the prerequisite masochistic qualities necessary for this.

Take this example:

If you are being beaten by a stranger on the street, should you be developing love and/or affection for this individual?

You might say God doesn't gratuitously punish innocents such as the above example implies,
well what then might you call new babies born with such defects that make their stay on earth a
horrible experience or floods or earthquakes that kill people that for argument's sake were as pure
as any human can be on earth?

You might say, God didn't cause these events, it's nature at work and has nothing to do with God.

Then you will be contradicting supposedly what Christians believe God to be.

After all, nothing happens that God didn't wish to allow to happen (having built in the capability, he would
logically be the ultimate cause of such events), right?

In fact, while we are at it, why did God create man that couldn't even reproduce without errors?

Isn't God merciful enough to give all babies a clean start?

Anyhow, basically, all of this goes back to my earlier general point:

If God does/plans things that are reprehensible to a reasonable individual, it is then not reasonable to go on to treat God
like some sort of a role model when it comes to behaviour, and especially to develop/proclaim your love/affection for him.

More to the point, knowing/believing that such a type of an all powerful being exists, is to know/experience eternal sadness/suffering/fear,
as you never know when the next dose of suffering that God planned for you will come from, then when it hits it may be random
without any explanation whatsoever and logically you will be better off without such knowledge/beliefs.

Not that this applies to me, because I do not believe in God for lack of any evidence whatsoever and any insistence to the
contrary will be met by my request for you to consider believing in a purple teapot orbiting Saturn.

OTOH If we assume that God does not know all and can't tell what's going to happen in the future, then the bible is lying to us
(well it does have dozens of contradictions, so that wouldn't surprise me, even the pope admitted it is faulty when it comes
to the real world ie. earth is not flat and is not stationary) and the whole concept of God should be suspect (assuming you were
a believer in the first place).